By Kennedy Ondiek
The issue of parliamentary majority in Kenya is once again at the forefront of political debate, but this time, it’s more than just a legal question—it’s a political one. The judiciary’s ruling that Azimio One Kenya constituted the majority coalition in Parliament was, at the time, a significant decision. However, given the drastic shifts in Kenya’s political landscape since then, it’s time to ask: Can this ruling still stand in practice, even if it holds up in law?
Since the court’s ruling, the makeup of Azimio One Kenya has changed beyond recognition. NARC-Kenya has exited the coalition, Wiper has moved firmly into the opposition, and ODM—the coalition’s anchor party—has effectively joined the government fold. These shifts have eroded the very numerical and ideological base upon which the court’s verdict was based. Clinging to the notion that Azimio One Kenya is still the majority coalition, in light of these changes, is akin to holding on to a legal fiction that no longer aligns with the present political reality.
While the sanctity of court rulings is important, the authority of a parliamentary majority isn’t determined in a vacuum. It’s not merely about who signed a coalition agreement before an election but about which parties and legislators are actually exercising legislative influence now. When ODM legislators vote with the government, and Wiper firmly opposes, the coalition’s practical makeup has fundamentally shifted, even if the court ruling remains intact. The legal ruling, though significant, has been overtaken by the evolution of political alliances in Parliament.
The problem here is that we continue to treat parliamentary majorities as static constructs, rather than dynamic entities that respond to the ebb and flow of political allegiances. The Speaker of the National Assembly, tasked with maintaining the integrity of legislative processes, must recognize that the majority-minority framework no longer reflects the political arithmetic of the present. What was once an agreed-upon coalition structure has been fundamentally reshaped by political realignments, rendering the previous framework obsolete.
Ultimately, the question must be asked: Should the composition of the parliamentary majority and minority continue to be dictated by outdated alignments, or should it reflect the current political reality? To continue with a rigid interpretation of majority status, despite shifting allegiances, is to ignore the essential nature of politics, which is driven by numbers, influence, and, above all, political pragmatism.
While the court’s ruling remains a legal precedent, its practical relevance has been overtaken by events. It’s time to put aside legal formalities and embrace the political realities that govern the dynamics of power in Parliament today.
The author is a lawyer, governance expert, political commentator, and a former legislator.
About the Author
